Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Danmark]

....

If 'God has no beginning and no end' why can't we say the 'universe' has no beginning and no end? Whether you name it 'God' or 'Universe' you are talking about the same process. Humans, 'thinking stuff' to use your expression are here. How did we get here? You say 'God made it happen.' The non theist says 'The universe made it happen' or "thinking beings" are a product of the universe.

Do you understand how putting a label "God" on this process adds nothing to the equation? It's just a name, just a label. Whatever you attribute to this 'God' who is beyond definition, one can attribute to the universe just as easily, but without any unnecessary and unsupported additions such as 'personal' or 'consciousness' or 'personality.'

I think I understand your point. It is just as easy for one to believe in an infinite universe or an infinite God...or god....or gods. Is that it? For me personally it is easier for me to believe in God since He and I "talk" to each other everyday. For someone who has never had any kind of divine revelation i can understand how they may tend to not believe in God or gods especially if they put their faith in science.

Thank you. Yes you got my point [however clumsily I may have expressed it ]

And I understand your point about personal divine revelation.
PDR is evidence too, and cannot be dismissed out of hand. It is 'real' or valid for you or anyone who claims it. I try not to be dismissive of it, but I think you may agree that it is necessarily subjective. And therein lies the problem. Those of us who were raised in the church understand the idea of PDR. We found it easy to consider many phenomena as potential PDR. Regardless of its authenticity, we have to consider that different people with either the same or different faiths experience PDR's that may differ greatly and even contradict each other.

I have even had my own dramatic PDR, when Jesus appeared to me in the middle of the day when I was out at anchor on my boat. He told me I was correct to consider him no more nor less divine than me or anyone else. I claim that PDR as every bit as authentic as Saul/Paul's. Well . . . that's not entirely accurate. I claim mine is MORE authentic since I had not been sick and dehydrated for days when I had my visitation.

[McCulloch]

There is the fact that the materialist posits that non thinking stuff created itself from that non existence and then became us.

I choose reality over madness and I choose God over emptiness filling itself with stuff.

A bit of an over-simplification. Stuff does not just create itself. Even those quantum pairs that we discuss at times, have to have a space time continuum to give them substance. The first law of thermodynamics states that stuff cannot be created nor destroyed. It has always been there, in some form or other. For as long as there has been time and for as long as time continues, we have no reason to believe that the total amount of stuff (matter and energy) in the universe has not changed and cannot change.

I prefer this picture of reality, consistent with what has been observed, over the idea of a God who always existed creating stuff from nothing.

But regardless of how you thing that the stuff got there in the first place, it does appear that non-living stuff became living stuff. And that over many generations, non-thinking living things became thinking things.

It is just as easy for one to believe in an infinite universe or an infinite God...or god....or gods. Is that it? For me personally it is easier for me to believe in God

Really? The universe is merely the set of all the stuff (matter and energy) that exists. We know that the universe is there. We know what parts of the are like. We have reason to believe that the stuff of the universe has existed for all time. On the other hand, I don't even know what you mean when you use the word God. We have no objective way to determine anything about God. How can you say that it is easier to believe in God than the Universe? Can you provide a coherent definition of the word God?

For me personally it is easier for me to believe in God since He and I "talk" to each other everyday. For someone who has never had any kind of divine revelation i can understand how they may tend to not believe in God or gods especially if they put their faith in science.

I have no doubt that you believe that you talk to God. You might even believe that God talks to you. But that does not make it real.

[Sir Hamilton]

....

If 'God has no beginning and no end' why can't we say the 'universe' has no beginning and no end? Whether you name it 'God' or 'Universe' you are talking about the same process. Humans, 'thinking stuff' to use your expression are here. How did we get here? You say 'God made it happen.' The non theist says 'The universe made it happen' or "thinking beings" are a product of the universe.

Do you understand how putting a label "God" on this process adds nothing to the equation? It's just a name, just a label. Whatever you attribute to this 'God' who is beyond definition, one can attribute to the universe just as easily, but without any unnecessary and unsupported additions such as 'personal' or 'consciousness' or 'personality.'

I think I understand your point. It is just as easy for one to believe in an infinite universe or an infinite God...or god....or gods. Is that it? For me personally it is easier for me to believe in God since He and I "talk" to each other everyday. For someone who has never had any kind of divine revelation i can understand how they may tend to not believe in God or gods especially if they put their faith in science.

Thank you. Yes you got my point [however clumsily I may have expressed it ]

And I understand your point about personal divine revelation.
PDR is evidence too, and cannot be dismissed out of hand. It is 'real' or valid for you or anyone who claims it. I try not to be dismissive of it, but I think you may agree that it is necessarily subjective. And therein lies the problem. Those of us who were raised in the church understand the idea of PDR. We found it easy to consider many phenomena as potential PDR. Regardless of its authenticity, we have to consider that different people with either the same or different faiths experience PDR's that may differ greatly and even contradict each other.

I have even had my own dramatic PDR, when Jesus appeared to me in the middle of the day when I was out at anchor on my boat. He told me I was correct to consider him no more nor less divine than me or anyone else. I claim that PDR as every bit as authentic as Saul/Paul's. Well . . . that's not entirely accurate. I claim mine is MORE authentic since I had not been sick and dehydrated for days when I had my visitation.

Uhoh....one those Jesus is lying. My Jesus told me that He was the Son of God ...i wonder which one was lying??

[Sir Hamilton]

There is the fact that the materialist posits that non thinking stuff created itself from that non existence and then became us.

I choose reality over madness and I choose God over emptiness filling itself with stuff.

A bit of an over-simplification. Stuff does not just create itself. Even those quantum pairs that we discuss at times, have to have a space time continuum to give them substance. The first law of thermodynamics states that stuff cannot be created nor destroyed. It has always been there, in some form or other. For as long as there has been time and for as long as time continues, we have no reason to believe that the total amount of stuff (matter and energy) in the universe has not changed and cannot change.

I prefer this picture of reality, consistent with what has been observed, over the idea of a God who always existed creating stuff from nothing.

But regardless of how you thing that the stuff got there in the first place, it does appear that non-living stuff became living stuff. And that over many generations, non-thinking living things became thinking things.

It is just as easy for one to believe in an infinite universe or an infinite God...or god....or gods. Is that it? For me personally it is easier for me to believe in God

Really? The universe is merely the set of all the stuff (matter and energy) that exists. We know that the universe is there. We know what parts of the are like. We have reason to believe that the stuff of the universe has existed for all time. On the other hand, I don't even know what you mean when you use the word God. We have no objective way to determine anything about God. How can you say that it is easier to believe in God than the Universe? Can you provide a coherent definition of the word God?

For me personally it is easier for me to believe in God since He and I "talk" to each other everyday. For someone who has never had any kind of divine revelation i can understand how they may tend to not believe in God or gods especially if they put their faith in science.

I have no doubt that you believe that you talk to God. You might even believe that God talks to you. But that does not make it real.

I think you are a bit confused. I was not argueing over whether or not the universe exist. I agree with you that the universe exist. What we are disagreeing over is the origin of the universe. What evidence do you have that proves the universe has always been? Are you serious when you say you have no idea what the word God means?? Even small children can grasp somewhat of the idea of what God means.

[iamtaka]

nd the proposition that something like an RNA molecule is too complicated to exist without the necessity of an intelligent designer, and so it therefore MUST be the result of an uncreated intelligent designer who is almost infinitely more complicated then an RNA molecule certainly qualifies as nonsense. Even if by some convoluted quirk of mathematical improbability this should prove to be the case, it certainly IS NOT logical.

This "uncreated intelligent designer who is almost infinitely more complicated than an RNA molecule" is not the god of Christianity. Christian theism adheres to a doctrine of divine simplicity.

[Danmark]

Uhoh....one those Jesus is lying. My Jesus told me that He was the Son of God ...i wonder which one was lying??

And that's the problem with personal revelation. It has an odd way of agreeing with one's beliefs or unconscious thoughts.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 2490 by 99percentatheism]

Again with the atheism= something from nothing strawman. You've been doing this for nearly 2 years now, could you please stop it ?

It's no strawman argument. It is an absolute truth. For all of the blustering and anti Christian efforts of the new atheism in the 21st century, or when cave men grunted their way through everyday life, there is the fact that the materialist posits that non thinking stuff created itself from that non existence and then became us.

I choose reality over madness and I choose God over emptiness filling itself with stuff.

I would like you to show where any atheist said that 'something came from nothing'. I would also love for you to show that the physical state of 'nothing', can exist, and also define it's characteristics. Where did atheist proclaim something came from nothing?

Can you demonstrate you are actually choosing 'reality over madness' rather than vise versa?

[Danmark]

I think you are a bit confused. I was not argueing over whether or not the universe exist. I agree with you that the universe exist. What we are disagreeing over is the origin of the universe. What evidence do you have that proves the universe has always been? Are you serious when you say you have no idea what the word God means?? Even small children can grasp somewhat of the idea of what God means.

Could you point to the exact text that leads you to the conclusion he was confused because I missed it.

When we consider evidence and make conclusions from it there is a rule of economy, where we no unnecessary assumptions and come to no unnecessary conclusions that are not compelled by the evidence.

Regarding the origin of the universe you can conclude either that it has always been, or that it came from nothing. It takes an extra step to come up with the idea of a god, but even if you do jump to that conclusion, you have the same choice. Either God always was, or he came into existence out of nothing.

We know the universe exists because we can observe it objectively. We do not know that God exists from objective observation; therefore it has always seemed odd to me that theists, who must take that extra step to posit a god, are so quick to say, 'god has always existed,' yet deny that the universe may have always existed.

It's like requiring extra evidence for what we all agree is everyday reality, but requiring non to believe in fantasy. Odd indeed.

[Sir Hamilton]

Uhoh....one those Jesus is lying. My Jesus told me that He was the Son of God ...i wonder which one was lying??

And that's the problem with personal revelation. It has an odd way of agreeing with one's beliefs or unconscious thoughts.

Or maybe personal revelation has an odd way of forming one's beliefs or unconscious thoughts. I think you get the picture....we can round and round and round.... You like surprises? I like surprises.

[Sir Hamilton]

I think you are a bit confused. I was not argueing over whether or not the universe exist. I agree with you that the universe exist. What we are disagreeing over is the origin of the universe. What evidence do you have that proves the universe has always been? Are you serious when you say you have no idea what the word God means?? Even small children can grasp somewhat of the idea of what God means.

Could you point to the exact text that leads you to the conclusion he was confused because I missed it.

When we consider evidence and make conclusions from it there is a rule of economy, where we no unnecessary assumptions and come to no unnecessary conclusions that are not compelled by the evidence.

Regarding the origin of the universe you can conclude either that it has always been, or that it came from nothing. It takes an extra step to come up with the idea of a god, but even if you do jump to that conclusion, you have the same choice. Either God always was, or he came into existence out of nothing.

We know the universe exists because we can observe it objectively. We do not know that God exists from objective observation; therefore it has always seemed odd to me that theists, who must take that extra step to posit a god, are so quick to say, 'god has always existed,' yet deny that the universe may have always existed.

It's like requiring extra evidence for what we all agree is everyday reality, but requiring non to believe in fantasy. Odd indeed.

Why does it take an extra step to come up with the idea of a god when this God has revealed Himself to some?....like me. I like to go with God has always existed. When you say "we" please do not include me in your "we" because if one has experienced divine revelation then your argument to that individual is silly. Could it be that your mind is bound by 4 dimensions (3 space and 1 time). Even physics has alluded to the possibility of more dimensions than what is normally accepted. So when you say words like objective observation you are only referring to the 4 dimensions that you operate in...what would be an objective observation if there are more dimensions that what you are aware of?